Players only meeting.

[Miggs]

Maybe take a break from JF, Arch.

 

[Archie Moses]

Maybe take a break from JF, Arch.

Not the worst idea.

 

[One Brow]

Yet, I never did that.

I don't recall saying you did. I don't remember who brought up "rapist" and called him a "predator". They never offered a reason for doing it, so I just took it in context.

I'm not surprised you would take my admission of my error and make it about you.

It's weird how you can translate **** like this into meaning that.

I'm borderline on the autism spectrum, and I can detect context like that. Why can't you?

 

[One Brow]

I think the fox can be a number of different types of people like the antifa's distraction of BLM. The Fox can be those who's best interests is motivated by money and profits.

You think most of the antifa are making money from this? If anything, the foxes would include the NBA owners.

 

[Archie Moses]

That doesn't change the wrongness of using a months-old interaction to justify shooting the guy when his back was turned.

Are you not saying I justified the shooting because I called him a rapist? If not, who are you saying justified it because of this?

I'm not surprised you would take my admission of my error and make it about you.

I commend you for doing so. I should have responded and recognized that you did. I was distracted by your next sentence that I read that I justified the shooting because of those details.

I'm so confused.

I'm borderline on the autism spectrum, and I can detect context like that. Why can't you?

Ok?

Maybe is misread what you wrote. Who are you saying justified the shooting?

 

[One Brow]

Are you not saying I justified the shooting because I called him a rapist? If not, who are you saying justified it because of this?

Was that you? OK. Why was it relevant to mention that Blake had (allegedly by the law, which is what the police are supposed to use) digitally raped. Please explain the relevance to his being shot in the back. If you can't, I can only go from the context.

Maybe is misread what you wrote. Who are you saying justified the shooting?

I'm saying I can't see any other reason to bring up a criminal history in the context of this particular shooting.

 

[NAOS]

This is about where I’d expect this conversation to end up.

 

[Archie Moses]

Was that you? OK.

This is gold. Maybe you should remember if you're going to say that?!

I'm not surprised you would take my admission of my error and make it about you.

How dare I take something about me and make it about me because you can't remember the conversation.

I'm saying I can't see any other reason to bring up a criminal history in the context of this particular shooting.

His history has nothing to do with him getting shot in the back. No one is saying that.
His, history, however, is certainly up for discussion.

 

[LogGrad98]

This is about where I’d expect this conversation to end up.

Well it hasn't been godwinned a whole lot, so there is that.

 

[NAOS]

Well it hasn't been godwinned a whole lot, so there is that.

Good term! New to me. Gracias.

 

[One Brow]

This is gold. Maybe you should remember if you're going to say that?!

Again, the post with the "wrongness" quote was about me, not about you.

How dare I take something about me and make it about me because you can't remember the conversation.

This stuff you say about this sounds a lot like JazzyFresh and similar posters. I don't keep track of every quote by every poster.

His history has nothing to do with him getting shot in the back. No one is saying that.
His, history, however, is certainly up for discussion.

Could you explain why it is relevant, please? If it has "nothing to do with him getting shot in the back", why is it in the conversation? Why did you bring it up?

 

[One Brow]

Well it hasn't been godwinned a whole lot, so there is that.

Yet.